Author: Becky Vinyl

In re Seroquel XR (Extended-Release Quetiapine Fumarate) Litigation (D. Del.)

This is a federal antitrust action brought on behalf of a class of direct purchasers seeking to recover overcharges for the delayed market entry of generic versions of Seroquel XR, which is prescribed to treat major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. NastLaw represents a class of persons and entities that purchased brand or generic Seroquel XR directly from one of the named Defendants.

In re Passenger Vehicle Replacement Tires Antitrust Litigation (J.P.M.L.)
Kenneth Williams v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft (E.D. Mich.)

This antitrust lawsuit alleges that the six leading groups of replacement tire companies have unlawfully conspired to increase the price of replacement tires by creating artificial supply shortages, sharing data, and signaling price increases via public statements and industry meetings. NastLaw filed a lawsuit on behalf of persons and entities that purchased replacement tires directly from these companies for the alleged overcharges they paid. At present, this case is among dozens that are subject to a pending motion for transfer to a single court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.)

This is a federal antitrust action seeking to recover overcharges caused by alleged unlawful tactics used to delay entry of generic versions of Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium) into the United States market. Lipitor belongs to a class of drugs called statins, which are prescribed to lower LDL (bad) cholesterol and reduce the risk of stroke and coronary heart disease. NastLaw represents a class of persons and entities that purchased brand or generic Lipitor directly from one of the named Defendants. The Court has preliminarily approved a settlement agreement with Pfizer for $93 million.

In re Insulin Pricing Litigation (D.N.J.)

Plaintiffs in this antitrust litigation allege that drug manufacturers colluded with pharmacy business managers (“PBMs”) to artificially and fraudulently inflate the price of analog insulin drugs in the United States. NastLaw is co-lead counsel for a proposed class of direct purchasers, and a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for a proposed class of third-party payors. The litigation is currently in the discovery stage.

In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.)

NastLaw is one of two co-lead counsel in this antitrust litigation alleging that manufacturers of certain HIV drugs engaged in a variety of anticompetitive conduct that caused direct purchasers to pay too much for those drugs. Plaintiffs recovered over $257 million on behalf of the direct purchaser classes via two settlements. A court-approved economist is currently processing the claims, and after that is completed, NastLaw will assist with the final allocation and distribution of those funds to eligible class members.

In re Granulated Sugar Antitrust Litigation (J.P.M.L.)
Northern Frozen Foods, Inc. v. United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative (D. Minn.)

Plaintiffs in this antitrust litigation filed lawsuits against producers of granulated sugar, an industry information clearinghouse, and an industry analyst. The lawsuit alleges that the sugar producers exchanged competitively sensitive information about their businesses directly with each other, and indirectly through the clearinghouse and industry agent, to fix the price of granulated sugar at inflated levels. NastLaw represents a proposed class of persons and entities that purchased granulated sugar directly from the sugar producers. At present, this case is among dozens that are subject to a pending motion for transfer to a single court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)

This antitrust litigation alleges that dozens of generic drug manufacturers have been colluding for over a decade to reduce competition and fix prices for more than 100 generic drugs, resulting in skyrocketing prices for generic drugs, some by as much as 8,000%. NastLaw is sole lead counsel for the class of direct purchasers of those drugs. The class entered into settlements with certain Defendants and continues to litigate claims against other Defendants. Please refer to the settlement website (https://genericdrugsdirectpurchasersettlement.com/) for further information.

In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.)

This antitrust lawsuit was filed against brand drug manufacturer Wyeth and generic drug manufacturer Teva, alleging that Wyeth and Teva violated federal antitrust laws by delaying the introduction of generic versions of Effexor XR into the United States market. Effexor XR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and social anxiety disorder.

The Court has preliminarily approved a settlement agreement for $39 million between Wyeth and a class of persons and entities that purchased brand or generic Effexor XR directly from Wyeth or Teva. Class members have rights that may be affected by the settlement.

The claims against Teva have not yet been settled; those claims are still being litigated.

In re Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation (J.P.M.L.) Kyndberg v. Apple Inc. (D. Minn.)

Plaintiffs in this litigation allege that Apple has maintained its smartphone monopoly, and the extraordinary profits that monopoly generates, by suppressing technologies that would increase smartphone competition. NastLaw represents a proposed class of persons and entities that purchased iPhones directly from Apple. At present, this case is among dozens that are subject to a pending motion for transfer to a single court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

In re DPP Beef Litigation (D. Minn.)

Plaintiffs in this litigation allege that producers of boxed beef colluded to artificially restrict the supply and raise the prices of boxed beef in the United States. NastLaw was appointed as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the direct purchaser class action. One defendant has settled for $52.5 million, and the discovery process is ongoing against the remaining defendants.